dia0,a0,0xff
> lw ra,12(sp)
> lw s0,8(sp)
> addisp,sp,16
> jr ra
> .size atomic, .-atomic
> .ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20180530 (experimental)"
h_add_1
> addia0,a0,1
> andia0,a0,0xff
> fence iorw,iorw
> lbu a5,0(s0)
> fence iorw,iorw
> add a0,a0,a5
> andia0,a0,0xff
> lw ra,12(sp)
> lw s0,8(sp)
> addisp,sp,16
> jr ra
> .size atomic, .-atomic
> .ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20180530 (experimental)"
add a0,a0,a5
andia0,a0,0xff
lw ra,12(sp)
lw s0,8(sp)
addisp,sp,16
jr ra
.size atomic, .-atomic
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20180530 (experimental)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86011
Bug ID: 86011
Summary: Inefficient code generated for ldivmod with constant
value
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86010
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
--- Comment #1 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86010
Bug ID: 86010
Summary: [7/8 Regression] redundant memset with smaller size
not eliminated
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86009
Bug ID: 86009
Summary: [Concepts] Placeholder as argument to
partial-concept-id forms extra constrained parameters
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79751
Hubert Tong changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hstong at ca dot ibm.com
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86008
Bug ID: 86008
Summary: std::quoted(std::basic_string_view) is missing
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85662
roland at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85995
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
I don't see the point of defining both __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ if GCC
cannot guarantee anything about standard conformance. With the current state,
it is not possible to test these macros in order to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed May 30 23:13:48 2018
New Revision: 260979
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260979=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/7 improve location for diagnostic
Pass in the location of the invalid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55976
--- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Wed May 30 22:55:38 2018
New Revision: 260978
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260978=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-05-30 David Pagan
PR c/55976
* c-decl.c (grokdeclarator):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85591
--- Comment #1 from Ștefan Talpalaru ---
I can confirm this on an FX-8320E.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86007
Bug ID: 86007
Summary: precompiled header on bdver2 with -march=native
triggers a "created and used with differing settings
of '-mlwp'" warning, intermittently
Product: gcc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004
--- Comment #1 from Jan Hubicka ---
Can you please check in g++.log what kind of error you get?
Incremental linking now produce LTO objects while previously it did produce
final binary. I went through testcases where this makes difference and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85369
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
Author: msebor
Date: Wed May 30 22:24:43 2018
New Revision: 260976
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260976=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/85369 - no -Wstringop-overflow for a strcpy / stpcpy call with a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85369
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86006
Bug ID: 86006
Summary: compile time error generic type bound procedure
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85879
cesar at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||openacc
--- Comment #3 from
lw s0,8(sp)
addisp,sp,16
jr ra
.size atomic, .-atomic
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 9.0.0 20180530 (experimental)"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86004
Bug ID: 86004
Summary: [9 regression] Several lto test cases begin failing
with r260963
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85977
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85977
--- Comment #3 from Marek Polacek ---
// PR c++/85977, Incorrect handling of array reference size deduction
// { dg-do compile { target c++11 } }
template
void fn1 (const char (&)[N]) { static_assert (N == 3, "fn1");}
template
void fn2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
--- Comment #6 from Sylwester Arabas ---
BTW, according to this gcc www entry, Blitz++ seems to listed as a part of GCC
test suite: https://gcc.gnu.org/testing/testing-blitz.html
Is this information up to date?
Was this issue somehow triggered
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
--- Comment #8 from Ville Voutilainen ---
See r260973
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77513
Ville Voutilainen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ville.voutilainen at gmail dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
--- Comment #5 from Jeff Hammond ---
> Finishing C++17 support in libstdc++ is already one of our top priorities for
> GCC 9. There's no need to ask for it, and doing so won't affect priorities.
> The missing pieces are documented:
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85920
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 85920, which changed state.
Bug 85920 Summary: Incomplete transition to IFNs for scatter/gather support,
drop vectorize.builtin_{gather,scatter} target hooks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85920
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85919
Bug ID: 85919
Summary: Incomplete transition to IFNs for scatter/gather
support, drop vectorize.builtin_{gather,scatter}
target hooks
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86003
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85807
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 30 19:31:11 2018
New Revision: 260972
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260972=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/85807 - ICE with call in template NSDMI.
* init.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81401
Paul Eggert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
Tavian Barnes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tavianator at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |9.0
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85977
--- Comment #2 from Marek Polacek ---
Seems like deducing the template parameter N fails because of the type
mismatch; parm is long int (element type of the array), while arg is int
(element type of {1, 2, 3}):
21789 /* We have already
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
--- Comment #3 from Jeff Hammond ---
Other projects use the existence of feature requests in their bug tracker for
prioritization of development. How does GCC manage this information? How do
you track GCC roadmap development if not through
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86003
Bug ID: 86003
Summary: [8 Regression] GCC fails to build when configured
--with-cpu=xscale
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86002
Bug ID: 86002
Summary: ICE with requires in constexpr if condition
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86001
Bug ID: 86001
Summary: explicit default constructor not allowed in anonymous
aggregate
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86000
Bug ID: 86000
Summary: ICE with requires statement in a non constexpr if
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85873
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill ---
Author: jason
Date: Wed May 30 17:33:06 2018
New Revision: 260969
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260969=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/85873 - constant initializer_list array not in .rodata.
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85999
Bug ID: 85999
Summary: 416.gamess slowed down by BB vectorization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85956
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83962
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
It hasn't been backported to 7.x/6.x, so no, unless we decide not to backport
it there.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83852
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83962
Peter Bergner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83009
--- Comment #10 from avieira at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: avieira
Date: Wed May 30 15:59:14 2018
New Revision: 260957
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260957=gcc=rev
Log:
Reverting r260635
gcc
2018-05-30 Andre Vieira
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85925
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-11/msg00112.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c++ |libstdc++
Severity|normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85998
Bug ID: 85998
Summary: feature request: support C++17 parallel STL
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85975
--- Comment #2 from Paul Thomas ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #1)
> Stephan,
>
> I tried the simply patch suggested in your analysis and
> it does fix the problem. I need to extend the patch to
> fix the m4 files that utilize the macro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-reduction
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51571
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2011-12-15 00:00:00 |2018-5-30
--- Comment #5 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85879
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cesar at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
The CFG cleanup hog is gone on trunk now - an artificial testcase triggering it
would need to present us with a large number of independently discoverable
branches like maybe
if (foo)
{
tem = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85964
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed May 30 14:55:04 2018
New Revision: 260954
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260954=gcc=rev
Log:
2018-05-30 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/85964
*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
for (b_P5 = 0; b_P5 < 8; b_P5++) {
P26 = P29;
P29 = -(int)*P5;
}
for (b_P5 = 0; b_P5 < 3; b_P5++) {
for (P29 = 0; P29 < 9; P29++) {
i0 = P26;
if (P26 < 0) {
i0 = 0;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85989
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70693
--- Comment #6 from David Binderman ---
Nearly three weeks later, any progress ?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|marxin at gcc dot gnu.org |rguenth at gcc dot
gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85992
--- Comment #4 from Matt Peddie ---
-fno-builtin-atanf does the trick. Thanks, Marc.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85960
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85993
Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #4 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
>> I see several possible fixes:
>>
>> * Just compile those files with -g0: there's probably no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from Alexander Monakov ---
> Why does this affect only new files, i.e. how did existing libgcc .S files
> avoid running into the same issue?
Besides the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871
--- Comment #6 from Christophe Lyon ---
This is not a typo. A .sum file has a line like this:
apm_64.tcwg-apm_64-build/g++.sum.xz:FAIL: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-8.C -std=gnu++11
gcov failed: File
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
Alexander Monakov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85992
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Matt Peddie from comment #2)
> Is there a way to disable this behavior?
-fno-builtin (or a more specific -fno-builtin-atanf) tells gcc to handle atanf
as a regular function call, not as a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85871
Maxim Kuvyrkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mkuvyrkov at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Guess easiest fix would be to disable hot/cold partitioning in naked functions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85992
--- Comment #2 from Matt Peddie ---
Thank you for your quick response. The explanation makes sense, and I agree
this is not a bug. I'd like to understand -- this seems to me to imply that
GCC will use MPFR to evaluate calls to libm functions
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #0)
> I see several possible fixes:
>
> * Just compile those files with -g0: there's probably no point in gas adding
> debug info anyway.
>
> * Restrict the cpp -P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85995
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener ---
I guess that would break way more code than the current state (or force people
to use -std=cXX over -std=gnuXX).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85997
Bug ID: 85997
Summary: Bogus -Wvla warning from function array argument with
size expression
Product: gcc
Version: 5.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85987
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85996
Bug ID: 85996
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: gfc_trans_select(): Bad
type for case expr.
Product: gcc
Version: 8.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85992
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85984
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85980
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85976
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85974
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85971
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> I think this is actually two different bugs.
> One where cstore is not working when there is a function call inbetween.
> If I add an argument to CreateChecksum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85958
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Grant ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)
> (In reply to Jonny Grant from comment #1)
> > My idea of what would be clearest is :-
> >
> > Cannot pass ‘const int‘ as ‘int&‘ (non const)
>
> I don't think
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85805
--- Comment #5 from Sandor Zsuga ---
I received a test report with avr-gcc 8.1.0 , -O2 optimization level: The
behavior is present ( https://www.avrfreaks.net/comment/2477081#comment-2477081
).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85995
Bug ID: 85995
Summary: GCC defines __STDC__ and __STDC_VERSION__ even when
used with options that break C conformance
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85558
--- Comment #2 from Paolo Carlini ---
See PR59480.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84206
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85994
Bug ID: 85994
Summary: Comparison failure in 64-bit libgcc *_{sav,res}ms64*.o
on Solaris/x86
Product: gcc
Version: 9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
